Open Letter to the New York Times: There is No “Room for Debate” About the Value of Fathers

In its June 4th “Room For Debate“, the New York Times insulted fathers by questioning their purpose, role and potential contribution to families. Scott Behson’s rebuttal to the question and commentary on the contributors’ writings.

Dear New York Times-

I expect more from the “Newspaper of Record” You question whether fathers have a role in modern families. Really?

That statistic is true, but it is very misleading*. The recent Pew Research Study found that 40% of households with children have “Breadwinner Moms”, but they arrive at this number by combining three very different groups:

The 11% of households that are led by single, never-married mothers

The 14% of households led by divorced mothers

The 15% of dual-parent families in which the mother out-earns the father (22.5% of dual-earner couples rely on the mother for the primary income)

It would have required actually reading, oh, the second paragraph of the report instead of just mouthing its misleading headline, but who am I to tell you about good journalistic practices? But, while we’re on the subject, it is not considered great journalism to characterize 40% as “almost half”- 40% is more accurate and takes up less ink (or pixels or whatever).

But, even worse is your implied question:

If fathers are no longer primary breadwinners (which, as I just showed you is an incorrect premise), then what are fathers good for?

The New York Times thinks I may have no purpose, besides a financial one, in the life of my family. My son and I disagree.

Your debaters all had more accurate and nuanced commentary on the role of fathers in family and society (well, all except “End of Men” gender troll Hanna Rosin). I’d like to highlight two of your debaters who, unlike you, used data in their argument, and demonstrated why fathers are vital.

“The view that men are superfluous in today’s families is dead wrong. While it is certainly true that some children raised without fathers turn out just fine (I did), on average, girls and boys are much more likely to thrive when they have the benefit of a father’s time, attention, discipline and especially affection.

Boys are more likely to steer clear of trouble with the law when they grow up with their father in the home. One Princeton study found that boys raised apart from their fathers were two to three times more likely to end up in jail before they turned 30.

Dads matter for daughters as well. Another study found that girls whose fathers disappeared before the girls turned 6 were about five times more likely to end up pregnant as teenagers than were their peers raised with their fathers in the home.

And we know that kids — especially boys — are more likely to excel in school, and to steer clear of the principal’s office, when they are raised in a home with a father who takes their homework and school conduct seriously.

So, even though many men cannot or need not serve as the primary breadwinners in their families, modern couples need to recognize that fathers’ contributions to their children’s welfare extend well beyond money.”

“The role of men is evolving even in the three-quarters of dual-parent families in which fathers are the primary breadwinners. They are far less likely these days to be just an economic contributor. Our research (with mainly college-educated, white-collar fathers) shows that today’s fathers spend an average of 2.5 hours per workday with their children and more than 3 out of 4 would like to have even more time with their offspring. Those fathers reported that being a breadwinner was less important to them than providing their children with love and emotional support, being present and involved in their child’s life, or being a good mentor and role model.

In spite of their longer paid working hours, fathers have doubled their time doing domestic tasks and tripled their time on child care over the last generation, although they do still do significantly less than their spouses in both categories. The number of at-home dads has also doubled in the last decade.

Families are better off in virtually every way when there are two parents present. When it comes to income to support family well-being, it matters less whether the woman earns more than her husband or vice versa. This shouldn’t be a competition pitting women against men. The progress that really matters is whether all American families are doing better. When we once again see the trend toward greater prosperity for all American families, then we will have a cause for celebration.”

But I feel I am going on too long. Let me sum up with a comment from one of my blog readers, Heidi Radunovich, who says it better than I ever could:

I have seen a lot of these stories lately on the Internet and in the paper, questioning the necessity of fathers. Because of course, what better way to honor fathers for Father’s Day than to question their utility? It is patronizing, and I find the whole concept offensive.

You, the venerable New York Times, should be better than this.

Sincerely,

Scott Behson

What do you think about this NYTimes debate? About the role of fathers beyond breadwinning? Let’s discuss in the comments section.

“As the Pew study rolled out in newspapers, on television and in social media, the main reaction was to celebrate it as a sign of women’s greater economic empowerment. But the dirty little secret is that in 5 out of 8 of these households, the woman was not just the primary breadwinner; she was the only breadwinner, without a partner.

That’s not the “end of men,” and it’s certainly not an economic victory for American women. When unmarried women are the breadwinners, which is now the case in 25 percent of U.S. households, the family’s average income is only $23,000 a year. More than half of the children in these homes are living in poverty. Glossing over this fact ignores the importance of having fathers in the picture. The female breadwinners who are making more than their working husbands are in a whole different income bracket; their median household income is $80,000.”

About Scott Behson

Scott Behson is a Professor of Management at Fairleigh Dickinson Scott Behson is a Professor of Management at Fairleigh Dickinson University, a busy involved dad, and the author ofThe Working Dad’s Survival Guide: How to Succeed at Work and at Home, the Amazon #1 best-seller helping dads achieve better work-life balance. He runs thewww.FathersWorkandFamily.com blog, writes for Harvard Business Review, The Huffington Post, and Time, and has appeared on MSNBC, Fox, NBC and NPR. Scott was a speaker at the recent White House Summit for Working Families. He lives in Nyack, NY with his wife, Amy, and son, Nick. Contact him @ScottBehson on twitter.

[…] in previous generations. But what difference does a dad make? In June, the New York Times hosted a forum on the question. As a college student, I remember a popular phrase at the time: A woman needs a man […]

Scott, Thanks for the excellent article. I’m sure there are some kids who grow up OK if they are raised by a loving father with an absent mother. But I don’t think anyone would address an article this way: “So what is the purpose of women in modern families? We’re approaching the holiday that celebrates moms, but do moms bring anything unique to the table?” Or maybe we could re-purpose the old feminist button to say, “A family needs a mother, like a fish needs a bicycle.” When my first son was born in 1969, I made a vow to… Read more »

Ogwriter, I’m glad you brought up the FOX incident. Note, with the exception of the writer, the lack of outrage to the New York Times article in comparison to that which was shown here at GMP for the Fox News episode? Difference? Fox addresses women where as this article addresses men. IMO, both are pretty much equal in so far as its level of content. Difference? Liberal media (New York Times) vs so called conservative media (Fox).

If I had to guess….seems like part of the subtext in this NY Times article is the reduced relevance of the “one-man, one-women traditional family unit” …which is fine I think, and not really outside the purview of the NY Times. Certainly families consisting of two dads, two moms, a commune, single mom or dad, biological or adoptive parents are every way as real and relevant as the traditional family unit. It just annoys me that the NY Times insists on using fathers as a best proxy to tear down the traditional family unit. Somewhere along the line, a lot… Read more »

@Scott
As was stated repeatedly on the Fox News says Men are Crappy Parents thread, this bs, hypocritical, conflicted attitude is widespread among both conservatives and liberals alike. The problem, in my opinion, worse among liberals because they think they are immune to such biases. And of course you won’t find a many women on GMP who will even admit that such feelings even exist among women. As a stay at father I experienced firsthand the silly, stupid and utterly retrograde treatment that dads receive.

Well, I WAS blissfully unaware that the NYT had published such an article. However, I have this theory (mostly gleaned from observation) that for whatever reason society has changed the way it looks at men as a whole, and fathers in particular. I would say it started in the mid(ish) 1960s and has evolved until today but the gist of it is that society is uncomfortable (at best) and cynical with the idea of the “good man.” By that I mean a grown male that takes obligations seriously, that looks after those he cares about with diligence and real compassion,… Read more »

Not sure as to exactly why the New York Times would publish such a stinging article when I’m certain there are plenty of employees working there who could’ve easily shed light upon the value of experiencing positive fatherhood in their respective lives. Maybe there wasn’t enough research done? Maybe it was written by a heartbroken mom? While I would never underestimate or take lightly the overall contributions of mothers to their households, especially breadwinners, there is still something to be said about the whole news and completeness of enjoying Dads, as well.

“I would never underestimate….mothers” vs. “there is still something to be said…Dads” Whoa, a little unbalanced there. I guess you were going for the ole’ “flatter the readers first by confirming there beliefs and then ease into the debate” rhetorical tactic. Wrong readers though, this is the GMP. What i don’t get is, if the NY Times, as a liberal institution, believes that its feminist minded audience would accept their premise that fathers are uniquely irrelevant, then their audience would have to accept that the same assertions could be extrapolated to the value of mothers. Failing to do so, would… Read more »